Proposal would further complicate planning without ensuring better results
One year ago, Lesley Blackner - the leading proponent of proposed Amendment 4 -- told a crowd in Sarasota that, as a result of the ballot initiative, "Maybe Florida will get the debate over growth that it needs."
Maybe not.
In the year since Blackner made that statement, the campaigns for and against Amendment 4 have done little to generate a constructive public discussion about land-use planning in Florida and its communities.
Instead, the debate has produced exaggerated claims, focused on the motives of proponents and opponents and, according to polls, polarized the electorate.
Similar results would often prevail, we fear, if Amendment 4 were approved -- thus establishing a requirement for local governments to gain voter approval of changes in comprehensive land-use plans.
Amendment 4's proponents contend the referendum requirement would give the public a layer of protection against wealthy special interests who make campaign contributions to local officials and then exact their support for "comp plan" changes.
The amendment would, in fact, create another hurdle and delay in the process.
But nothing in Amendment 4 would prevent those same monied interests from funding expensive campaigns to gain voter approval of the changes.
Potentially broad impacts
It makes sense to have higher thresholds for land-use decisions that substantially impact taxpayer-funded budgets or the character of a community.
For instance, the Herald-Tribune Editorial Board vigorously supported a 2008 initiative in Sarasota County approved by nearly 80 percent of voters. That county charter amendment requires unanimous approval by the County Commission of any movement of the urban service area boundary; previously, only a simple majority of voters was required.
Amendment 4 is much broader. The summary on the general election ballot says the amendment: "Establishes that before a local government may adopt a new comprehensive land use plan, or amend a comprehensive land use plan, the proposed plan or amendment shall be subject to vote of the electors ..."
The full text states, "comprehensive land use plan means a plan to guide and control future land development in an area under the jurisdiction of a local government."
But a comp plan is more complex than that. It includes a detailed of regulations, funding mandates, infrastructure requirements and provisions that give rights to landowners and their neighbors.
Despite the potential for some plan changes to dramatically affect a community, many plan amendments -- especially those that are technical -- attract little public interest or opposition.
As we've written previously, planning by referendum is problematic.
We agree with those, including Amendment 4 supporters, who wish that comp plans were created from the outset to be both visionary and reliable.
However, as Sarasota County Commissioner Jon Thaxton has written in the Herald-Tribune, if comp plan changes are too difficult and time-consuming to achieve, progress will be stifled.
"The Amendment 4 Web site implies that future overdevelopment and traffic problems would no longer happen with the passage of Amendment 4," Thaxton wrote. "On the contrary, this amendment would make it much harder for our communities to improve transportation and encourage smarter growth."
Thaxton is an environmentalist and conscientious county commissioner; he has often sided with those who support Amendment 4. His opposition to Amendment 4 carries weight with us, as does his concern that passage would harm the perception of Florida's business climate, which "plays a critical role when smart, 'green' industries consider their relocation options."
Proponents and opponents of Amendment 4 have cited studies on the potential impacts of the initiative. Proponents say the short-term economic effects would be negligible and that the state would benefit in the long term from higher development standards that would result from the referendum requirement. Studies cited by opponents say the amendment would kill tens of thousands of jobs and cost the economy millions of dollars. At best, the results are uncertain and hard to predict.
As Thaxton acknowledges, not all business expansions and relocations require comp plan changes. But his conclusion that "Amendment 4 all but throws a 'Not Welcome' doormat at the state line" and could stymie economic recovery is compelling.
Public already has influence
One argument offered by proponents is that residents should have the ability to vote on comp plan amendments that would affect development in their neighborhoods.
Experience in Manatee and Sarasota counties has shown, however, that referendums aren't necessary for the public to influence land-use decisions: Many residents and neighborhood groups are very effective at expressing their views on development at county commission and city council meetings.
What's more, we're concerned about the possibility that, if Amendment 4 passes, a majority of voters countywide could have greater influence than the views of residents directly affected by plan changes.
We realize that mistakes occur in city and county planning, and that campaign contributions can impact land-use decisions and comprehensive plans. We wish the Legislature would stop trying to undermine local, regional and statewide planning efforts.
If we thought that Amendment 4 would result in better planning, more economic growth and improvements in the common good, we would support this measure.
But, after reviewing the arguments of proponents and opponents, we don't think the amendment would be good for Florida or its communities -- including ours.
The Herald-Tribune recommends voting "No," against Amendment 4.
